George Zimmerman Trial

[irishpat183]

Pat, should someone endeavor to find the stupidest things that white people have said on twitter? Probably not a lot of racism and threats of violence in there, you think? You really have to stop reading that website. It is poisoning your mind. What is wrong with getting news from people who aren't crazy?

Ahhhh...you mean like the MSM?

You know, Fox and MSNBC?


MSNBC, who was caught with their pants down editing the 911 call which helped incite the race riots we're about to see?

now, they're not crazy at all....


And how is this "crazy"? I'm simply pointint out the blowback from this case. If they don't convict GZ, we riot. It'll be LA all over again...but hopefully a lot more citizens will be gunning down the morons rioting.

 

[Woneone]

What is this nazi Germany? You're not allowed to go anywhere at night? Or only if you're black? A strange person in your yard may be cause for alarm. Someone you don't know walking down the street isn't suspicious. Again I ask, if this was a black adult that shot an unarmed white kid doing nothing but walking down the street would everyone here still be making the same arguments? I don't know if Zimmerman was motivated in part by race, but I'm pretty sure that the phenomenon of people defending a guy who shot a kid for walking down the street has a lot to do with race.

So, what you've taken away from the trial is that this was a public execution and anyone who says otherwise is racial motivated?

Thanks Reverend Al.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Are the non-crazies making literature too?

Why have you resorted to post such insulting content. You are rapidly taking this to an unacceptable level.

 

[drayer54]

Because he has a trace of THC in his system he has "no regard for the law and isn't the innocent little kid that was depicted . . ."; wake up that makes half the American population geriatric sociopathic killers? Give us all a break!

No.

It doesn't make anyone a killer. That was a leap from who knows what.

It would have been admitted with the text messages, but since that judge denied the text messages, it didn't get used to show what kind of kid he really was. People who try to make him out to be an angel just give him a pass on the drug habit and the history of fighting.

 

[irishpat183]

The media was trying to sell a story. They were trying to promote anger and excitement. Trying to captivate an audience, get ratings, turn a profit. Facts didn't get in the way of that process.

I showed you how NBC bashed Zimmerman Trayvon Tragedy: Manufactured Racism? How NBC Edited Racism Into the George Zimmerman 911 Call - YouTube
by twisting the video into a story that it isn't. I didn't really care about the case until I followed the actual trial and was shocked how underwhelming the case against GZ actually is.

My observation is that people who think he is guilty are looking at the big picture that he had a gun (big scary Kel-tech 9mm) and pursued a teenager who ended up dead. That is enough for them.They feel the emotions of profiling and life lost.

I feel that those who are outraged at this case and demand an acquittal are looking more at the fact that Zimmerman took a beating and very well likely was defending himself. A lesser charge given as a compromise because they have doubt would be a shame. I don't see how anyone can say beyond a reasonable doubt they know GZ murdered TM.

Exactly. Sheep. They were presented with this " poor black kid got killed by big scary white guy" and they bit...hook, line, and sinker.

Then when the FACTS came out...it was llike...."uhhhhhhhhhhhhh...RACISM!!!" Or "Why was he following him"?



LOL.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

So, what you've taken away from the trial is that this was a public execution and anyone who says otherwise is racial motivated?

Thanks Reverend Al.

More uncalled for bull shiit!

 

[NDWorld247]

Manslaughter is now on the table and IMO Zimmerman will be convicted of this charge. Is this the result that incites both sides??

 

[Irish Houstonian]

This.

My idiot Glenn Beck loving sister came into the house the other day talking about how the THC was probably making him paranoid and thus attacked Zimmerman.

HUH??? That would take a ton of weed and I doubt he'd have done well in a fight at that point anyway. He'd want a bag of cheetos instead...

Your sister doesn't understand the case and/or why the toxicology report is being introduced. It doesn't go toward the likelihood of aggression, it goes toward the likelihood that Zimmerman actually suspected that Martin was "on drugs".

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Manslaughter is now on the table and IMO Zimmerman will be convicted of this charge. Is this the result that incites both sides??

Well, he'll still get a mandatory minimum of 30 years -- I can't see how even the most deranged anti-Zimmerman folks would be unsatisfied with that.

 

[ACamp1900]

So Rhode has gone to the "you're a poisoned racist if you dont think like me" card??? Shocker... And the sun does rise...

 

[Rhode Irish]

Exactly. Sheep. They were presented with this " poor black kid got killed by big scary white guy" and they bit...hook, line, and sinker.

Then when the FACTS came out...it was llike...."uhhhhhhhhhhhhh...RACISM!!!" Or "Why was he following him"?

LOL.

Not really. I think that people who think Zimmerman should be convicted don't regard his "story" as "fact" and think that the guy that shot a kid should be punished. From my perspective, the races of the individuals involved don't matter, although I suspect the same is not true for a lot people here who are so willing to buy this guy's asinine story.

 

[Woneone]

More uncalled for bull shiit!

Please. As has been pointed out previously by others, a good portion of this thread is "uncalled for bull shiit" depending on your definition of it.

The only reason I even read this thing anymore is due to my curiosity on how such seemingly intelligent people can put the blinders on when something hits a nerve.

Whether you want GZ to fry or go free, I don't really care. But the difference in the picture people paint of the situation, disregarding what has actually been presented in a court of law is, well, breathtaking. Reminds me of my days on 4chan.

 

[Rhode Irish]

So Rhode has gone to the "you're a poisoned racist if you dont think like me" card??? Shocker... And the sun does rise...

Right, I'm always bringing up race about everything. I'd love for you to show me another example. In this particular case, though, I don't think anyone would be buying the shooter's story if the race dynamic was any other combination. I don't think that necessarily makes people stone cold racists. I just think that there are neuroses displaying themselves here that everyone may not always be consciously aware of.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Exactly. Sheep. They were presented with this " poor black kid got killed by big scary white guy" and they bit...hook, line, and sinker.

Then when the FACTS came out...it was llike...."uhhhhhhhhhhhhh...RACISM!!!" Or "Why was he following him"?



LOL.

I was presented with unarmed black seventeen year-old was killed by armed man under unknown circumstances.

Black peoples have been murdered by blacks and whites with little or no intervention for centuries. The same is not true of whites, or Hispanics, or Jews, or Catholics. Only Native Americans.

So pardon a situation where an unethical whorish media exploits this situation and plays upon people this way.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Please. As has been pointed out previously by others, a good portion of this thread is "uncalled for bull shiit" depending on your definition of it.

The only reason I even read this thing anymore is due to my curiosity on how such seemingly intelligent people can put the blinders on when something hits a nerve.

Whether you want GZ to fry or go free, I don't really care. But the difference in the picture people paint of the situation, disregarding what has actually been presented in a court of law is, well, breathtaking. Reminds me of my days on 4chan.

Not everything the defense presents in a court of law is fact. All they are trying to do is offer an alternative scenario to what the state offered, hoping that at least someone on the jury will buy it. They can completely make that alternative scenario up, as long as a juror buys it. Maybe part of the problem here is that people don't get that?

 

[drayer54]

Not really. I think that people who think Zimmerman should be convicted don't regard his "story" as "fact" and think that the guy that shot a kid should be punished. From my perspective, the races of the individuals involved don't matter, although I suspect the same is not true for a lot people here who are so willing to buy this guy's asinine story.

The race doesn't matter and the fact that he shot him doesn't matter. The question is why he shot him? Zimmerman didn't know he was a kid. The cop said he looked like he was in his twenties. I don't need to believe GZ verbatim to believe he acted in self defense. The wounds and the neighbors testimony are good supporting testimony for the "story".

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Right, I'm always bringing up race about everything. I'd love for you to show me another example. In this particular case, though, I don't think anyone would be buying the shooter's story if the race dynamic was any other combination. I don't think that necessarily makes people stone cold racists. I just think that there are neuroses displaying themselves here that everyone may not always be consciously aware of.

What do you disagree with in Zimmerman's story, and what evidence are you relying on?

 

[drayer54]

Not everything the defense presents in a court of law is fact. All they are trying to do is offer an alternative scenario to what the state offered, hoping that at least someone on the jury will buy it. They can completely make that alternative scenario up, as long as a juror buys it. Maybe part of the problem here is that people don't get that?

You mean the prosecution created a theory of what happened and the defense provided a second theory and proved how circumstantial and impossible the prosecutions story was?

It's almost like every other trial where the defense tries to prove the prosecution has circumstantial evidence.

The problem is that the state never proved their theory and they must prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most would agree that they haven't come even close to meeting that burden of proof.

 

[Woneone]

Not everything the defense presents in a court of law is fact. All they are trying to do is offer an alternative scenario to what the state offered, hoping that at least someone on the jury will buy it. They can completely make that alternative scenario up, as long as a juror buys it. Maybe part of the problem here is that people don't get that?

You realize, your entire paragraph can be rephrased to make the Prosecution the focus, correct?

Not everything the PROSECUTION presents in a court of law is fact. The PROSECUTION needs to offer a scenario, and hope that at the jury will buy it. They can completely make that scenario up, as long as the jury buys it.

That's the problem. People have made up their minds that one side is completely right or complete liars. In actuallity, that's probably not the case at all.

There are no real "Facts" in this case when it pertains to exactly HOW things went down that night. You have stories. And you're more than welcome to believe what you will. But the staggering amount of narrow-mindedness shown by some is amazing. They believe what they will, and shout it from the roof-tops as if they were actually there.

Stories. Everyone either calling for GZ's head, or excusing his actions is doing it based off of a story they've been told by one side or the other.

I just find it so hard to believe that people can shout with such confidence that they're side is right based off of such contradictory accounts.

 

[A Pac]

The problem is that the state never proved their theory and they must prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most would agree that they haven't come even close to meeting that burden of proof.

That's the problem. Zimmerman deserves to go to jail and I think he's going to walk. The state hasn't provided any evidence that shows that GZ got out of his car with the intent of killing a person.

 

[drayer54]

That's the problem. Zimmerman deserves to go to jail and I think he's going to walk. The state hasn't provided any evidence that shows that GZ got out of his car with the intent of killing a person.

What does he deserve to go to jail for? I think he is a moron. But Jail? No

 

[Rhode Irish]

You realize, your entire paragraph can be rephrased to make the Prosecution the focus, correct?

Not everything the PROSECUTION presents in a court of law is fact. The PROSECUTION needs to offer a scenario, and hope that at the jury will buy it. They can completely make that scenario up, as long as the jury buys it.

That's the problem. People have made up their minds that one side is completely right or complete liars. In actuallity, that's probably not the case at all.

There are no real "Facts" in this case when it pertains to exactly HOW things went down that night. You have stories. And you're more than welcome to believe what you will. But the staggering amount of narrow-mindedness shown by some is amazing. They believe what they will, and shout it from the roof-tops as if they were actually there.

Stories. Everyone either calling for GZ's head, or excusing his actions is doing it based off of a story they've been told by one side or the other.

I just find it so hard to believe that people can shout with such confidence that they're side is right based off of such contradictory accounts.

Technically, no. The state has the burden of proof. The defense doesn't have to PROVE anything. All they have to do is raise a shadow of a doubt. They can do that any number of ways, and it is possible to do so without actually presenting evidence at all (although not terribly likely). The state cannot prove its case without evidence.

 

[NDWorld247]

Well, he'll still get a mandatory minimum of 30 years -- I can't see how even the most deranged anti-Zimmerman folks would be unsatisfied with that.

Let's ask Rhode Irish. I think he fits your description...Would you be unsatisfied with a manslaughter conviction, Rhode?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

You mean the prosecution created a theory of what happened and the defense provided a second theory and proved how circumstantial and impossible the prosecutions story was?

It's almost like every other trial where the defense tries to prove the prosecution has circumstantial evidence.

The problem is that the state never proved their theory and they must prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most would agree that they haven't come even close to meeting that burden of proof.

Proved their theory? They don't even have a theory. All they did was try to cast doubt on the Defense theory.

 

[drayer54]

I just find it so hard to believe that people can shout with such confidence that they're side is right based off of such contradictory accounts.

If you find it hard to believe then you must be saying that nothing has been proven here.... If that is what you are saying then you would be an acquittal vote with me. Nothing has been proven to show that he is a killer.

 

[irishpat183]

What do you disagree with in Zimmerman's story, and what evidence are you relying on?

That is the million dollar question. That nobody will answer

 

[Woneone]

Technically, no. The state has the burden of proof. The defense doesn't have to PROVE anything. All they have to do is raise a shadow of a doubt. They can do that any number of ways, and it is possible to do so without actually presenting evidence at all (although not terribly likely). The state cannot prove its case without evidence.

The sum of the parts, in this case, does not equal the whole.

Sure, the state provides evidence. But does providing evidence inherently make their case "Fact"? Or is it still their version of the story?

 

[Woneone]

If you find it hard to believe then you must be saying that nothing has been proven here.... If that is what you are saying then you would be an acquittal vote with me. Nothing has been proven to show that he is a killer.

I agree.

Do I THINK he's guilty of something? Yes.

If history has proven me anything, it's that me having to think is not good for anyone. In a case like this, I need the thinking to be done for me, to be proven to me in a way that I have no doubts about the conviction.

Do I believe, beyond a resonable doubt as presented in this case, that GZ is guilty of murder 2? No.

 

[irishpat183]

Proved their theory? They don't even have a theory. All they did was try to cast doubt on the Defense theory.

BINGO!

They ran with the mob and now caught with their pants down

 

[Irish Houstonian]

For you legal nerds out there, these are the standard Florida Jury Instructions for Self-Defense:

The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].

A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
Read in all cases.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.